Letters to the Editor
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 774 Editor's Choice: 100
-
Re djansing
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's healthcare 2.0]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You miss my point. Without oversight, there is no guarantee that people won't get screwed. Moreover, it is not at all clear that everyone will get enough money to buy a plan that is as generous the one Congress enjoys (you can't "compete" by losing money).
Where I part ways with you and Clinton is that I don't think the "free market" is divine. It works for restaurants, most widgets and other consumer items of choice, but it is a terrible arbiter in healthcare delivery. Every other industrialized nation has a single payer system -- which for the most part are LOVED by their citizens (and costs the nations about half as much as we spend). In fact, it would be political suicide in those nations to suggest moving away from single payer. Isn't that a clue?
-
re Paul Dirks
[Read the article: Are Democrats planning still worse FISA capitulations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't think most people are attacking corporations, so much as attacking politicians who work for corporations. I agree that it is a corporation's job to turn profits -- which is why it is government's job to regulate those corporations for the common good, based on democratic demands.
In fact, if a corporation's competitors were buying out Congress for a bigger piece of the tax pie, or for specific perks, I would expect that corporation to do the same in order to compete.
Congress is at fault for being corrupt. Corporations are not at fault for legally buying them.
(Note, I do think corporations have moral obligations they often violate, but again, like individual citizens, corporations must be regulated by strong laws that the government enforces – we shouldn’t just expect “market forces” to make the moral.)
-
Hey tiberius
[Read the article: Are Democrats planning still worse FISA capitulations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please point out where in the Constitution it states that all provisions contained within apply only when the Commander in Chief isn't killing someone, somewhere.
-
Hey Poco
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's healthcare 2.0]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please defend the fact that we spend on average twice as much as nations with single payer, yet we get less and worse care (unless you are rich). It doesn't sound like the US is all that "conservative" with its healthcare dollars.
And one other note: you say the downtrodden shouldn't get care on your dime. Well why should insurance companies get any money? They're not sick and they're not making anyone well. They are more of a parasite than anyone you invoke.
-
Re djansing
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's healthcare 2.0]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think we agree that the free market works in most cases where there is good competition. But in healthcare, there are extra hurdles.
First, you don't know you will be screwed with insurance until you are -- so after declaring bankruptcy you can use your buying power to endorse another company (not a great option).
Second, connected to the first point, if we agree that healthcare should be something everyone should access (and Hillary suggests she agrees with this) we need to make clear that access to insurance is not the same as access to healthcare. With regard to the free market, you have an intermediary player so you lack the freedom to switch doctors or make other moves that would allow the "free market" to improve care.
Finally, with a car, as in your example, you can wait until you find the right one in most cases, and the only limits are distance and price. With healthcare, you often don't need it until you really need it -- and then you don't have the same options to shop around.
I guess I just see capitalism and free markets as a good tool -- a tool that is not right for every human activity.
-
meffert...
[Read the article: Joe Lieberman and three Republicans]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just a correction: while some rights associated with habeas corpus are found in the 5th & 6th amendments, it is in section 1 of the Constitution that you will find this:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
Yup, the only qualifier is in cases of rebellion or invasion -- doesn't say anything about U.S. citizens only. Too bad this document has been turned into a "best practices" handbook and no longer has the force of law.
-
Hey shooter242
[Read the article: Are Democrats planning still worse FISA capitulations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You aren't very savvy are you? Rights for some and not for others, based on one man's decision, are not rights. Maybe Bush is an honorable man, who would never call anyone an enemy combatant who isn't genuinely about to kill Americans, but what happens when we voters make a mistake and elect someone without such great judgment?
And by the way, you're wrong. There are not clear SC rulings that bar the President from declaring citizens enemy combatants.
-
Question for Curmudgeon2
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's healthcare 2.0]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You wrote:
Where they are salaried you will get the dregs of society becoming care deliverers.
What evidence do you have for this? [And a theory about lack of incentive is not hard evidence -- cite examples in the many nations that have salaried doctors.]
-
Re stanleyj
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's healthcare 2.0]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are wrong.
In the nations you cite there is extensive government regulation and investment in healthcare such that it is almost cost free to the user and delivers real care even if it is expensive.
These nations, in practice, produce a result more akin to nations that have clear-cut single payer systems (France, England, Canada) than to the U.S.A., which is at the bottom of the list of industrialized, democratic nations when it comes to healthcare delivery for the at large population.
-
Senate Reporting
[Read the article: All in a day's work]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Democrats, when considering a filibuster against a demonstrably dishonest, right-wing judicial nominee, are a tyrannical minority blocking the will of the Senate.
Republicans who filibuster every single piece of legislation that has the support of the nation are, well, nothing. The votes just fail.
But before I give Democrats a pass, they encourage this coverage by showing fear of the labels, thereby giving the labels legitimacy; they could have filibustered the FISA giveaway, or the Military Commissions Act.